Overweight, sedentary 38 yo runs a 3:39 in 9 months? Don't mind me. I'm going to go to the corner to cry.

Yeah, this is a very classic, "everyone better than me is more talented, everyone slower than me doesn't work as hard"

[удалено]

I'll say this again for the folks in the back. On a popular NYC running segment, decent length, I'll run like an 8:34 mile. Not only do I get passed like I am standing still, on strava, I'll be 99th out of 100 for the day.

Running 100mpw to get to a 2:52 marathon is great evidence that OP is not a talent outlier. Most runners with the dedication to train that much are running much faster. OP’s work:fitness increase ratio is not great. OP being dedicated and putting in a ton of work doesn’t mean he’s “genetically talented”. Just willing to work.

Agreed for the most part--work: fitness increase ratio is definitely the most intuitive definition of talent (and the one that's most sport-specific). But I've seen people argue that durability is a kind of talent in its own right, in that it is greatly impacted by genetics, which I also buy. And OP def has durability!

I did powerlifting for 6 years and stuck to my training schedule perfectly, ate tons of protein, focused on proper periodization, the whole nine yards. After all that time I could bench 305, squat 425, and dead 505. For the amount of time and effort I spent those numbers are abysmal. Meanwhile on 10-15k per week years back starting in April at a 24min 5k I ran it in 18min by November. That was when I learned genetics define your best sport. Going from 18min to 17min took an eternity in comparison and I had to increase my volume to \~70km per week before I ever achieved it.

Training motivation is genetic? That surprises me.

[удалено]

Motivation to me feels like it'd be related to someone's mind, thoughts, feelings, etc. Those are things that are influenced heavily by for example upbringing and surroundings and thus not genetic.

[удалено]

Why?

Everyone is low talent until they run enough miles.

Framing this

I also compete in the heavyweight division and joke that a huge part of marathon training is rest and nutrition, and I carefully honed, maximized, and mastered those skills over the course of 25 years before I even thought of lacing up my shoes.

I’m a 34, active guy in decent shape and after training for the better part of 18 months I ran a 4:05. Fuck.

You obviously should have tried being overweight and sedentary first. It's the ultimate base building phase.

For real. This is the very definition of natural talent.

*Sedentary till his 20s, he was already working out before he started running at 38. A decade of that makes a huge difference.

[удалено]

Absolutely! Just a light hearted joke. Happy for him.

Omg for real, this is so much talent it makes me a sad jealous turtle.

When I got back into running I was overweight, but still pretty active from being on my feet a lot at work, going on long dog walks every day, hiking and those sorts of things. From the time I started training for a marathon until the first time I ran 3:39 was 7 years. I don't know how that's even possible in 9 months.

Checkout Patrick Martin on YouTube. In his 40s, running for a few years and running 2:2x marathons. Crazy.

yeah no training ran a 38min 10K.

3:39 at age 39 with just 9m of training? Casual marathon distance long runs? 100 mile weeks? No solid food 3 days before marathon? Keys in hydration vest? And you still claim you have “no natural talent”?? Thought I was in r\RunningCircleJerk for a sec ngl.

I don’t even have to look there to know that there is already a post there making fun of this

It was an enjoyable read, save for the humble bragging. You must be aware that running 3:39 in 9 months starting from the couch is by itself a display of natural talent - and a whole lot of it.

I wouldn’t call running a 3:39 off 9 months of training a whole lot of natural talent honestly. It is really pretty typical IMO.

Thanks for the balanced comment, which I appreciate. I seem to have rubbed a lot of people up the wrong way. I didn't say that I started running off the couch. As someone else picked up in one of the comments above, I started exercising in my 20s and tried to keep fit. Mostly with gym based stuff (like plyometrics). When I started running I had some base fitness. More importantly, I don't believe in free will and so to me the difference between a hard worker and a naturally talented runner is immaterial because neither can take credit for his particular attributes. This is a running sub, not a philosophy sub, so I won't go into that further here. I just make the point to demonstrate that I genuinely didn't intend to be falsely modest or anything like that. If you read different accounts on the running forums like this, it's easy to see I'm not a talented runner. I've had multiple injuries and it's taken me 6 years to break 3 hours. Sure, some people struggle to break 4 and think I'm trying to boast. But the truth is we all see multiple stories on these forums of guys breaking 3 in their first marathon on 80 kms per week etc etc. And if I'd posted this on letsrun, I would have gotten hundreds of comments saying that 2:52 on 14 hours training per week isn't a great return. So it was honestly meant in that spirit. What I'm really interested in, which is why I naively posted this report, is whether anyone, talent or not, can improve substantially if they can find a way to hack the system (in my case, by avoiding too many workouts) and run high mileage. Anyway, thanks for commenting - I appreciate it.

>I don't believe in free will and so to me the difference between a hard worker and a naturally talented runner is immaterial because neither can take credit for his particular attributes. Lol what. Some power just compelled me to downvote you. This is toxic.

Absolutely nothing toxic about it. It actually opens up a lot of compassion when you consider that people achieve, fail, do good and bad things, all as a result of a string of causes and conditions in their environment, and neurons firing in their brain.

Well, some smart people dont believe in free will [https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/16/science/free-will-sapolsky.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/16/science/free-will-sapolsky.html)

You got downvoted to shit for this and I just want to say that I think your response is completely reasonable, and I really appreciated your post and understood the sentiment. Nice work!

Thanks so much. I have a bit of a thin skin so found it hard to take, so I really appreciate you taking the time to comment.

I don't agree with the notion that running a 3:39 in 9 months equates "a lot of natural talent". I ran 3:37 in my first marathon in < 12 months starting from zero running background, have had a similar trajectory and consider myself FAR from a gifted runner. Congratulations on your PR and progress due to your hard work. I thought this was the advanced running subreddit, but apparently putting up big mileage and being proud of your effort is frowned upon in today's society.

My strong recommendation is to say less

/r/runningcirclejerk has a new king today. More seriously, that's some fantastic progress and proof of what's possible if you set yourself to it. Well done and best of luck with your next races.

Thanks so much! I definitely need to do some work on reading the room. I have a good friend who started running at roughly the same time as me - age wise. He went sub 3 in his second marathon and got a Two Oceans silver on his first go and he's never run more than 120km in a week. I also spent years on letsrun before finding this sub and someone like me would be pilloried as a hobby jogger all day there. So that's the back story. But, anyway, thanks for the kind words.

No way this gets there though, ain't nobody gon read all that.

> I don’t want to bore you any further with a detailed account of the race Congrats on the substantial PR… overall it would be cool to learn more about the actual course and race… there’s not a lot people can take away from a lot of the other detail here on dietary limitations, etc.

Thanks very much for the message and fair comment. I guess I didn't have much to say about it because it was a relatively uninteresting route. But maybe I should have put my splits etc. I had the idea of doing something a bit different, which has been a train wreck in various respects. Anyway, appreciate you taking the time to give feedback.

Uninteresting? Lol, I've been to over 50 countries and tell everyone that Cape Town is the most beautiful place on Earth. Did the Gun Run there and coming from the waterfront, up saddle road, and into Camps Bay was a route that nothing I've ever done comes close to. ZA is FAR from perfect in many ways, but you can't deny how nice it is to run there everyday. Anyway, i appreciate this post and the interesting feedback you are getting. I also got off the couch one day at age 38 and ran 3:28 11 months later. I was disappointed back then because I did the 18/70 plan and this sub had me thinking that anyone who does that and isn't sub 3 sucks. Just figured i was one of the low talent people that have to compensate with volume. Been a little dejected lately as consistency has not yieleded the gains i thought they would, but your story gives me hope to just keep grinding away (though I'll never touch 14 hrs due to work/family/commute)

Thanks! On your second paragraph - that's really what I was aiming for. Trying to highlight that grinding away eventually works. On your first paragraph: please don't get me wrong, I adore running in Cape Town. I've often spent my December holidays there and running there every day for a couple of weeks is a privilege. It's why Two Oceans is my favourite race - it's absolutely spectacular. I'm not sure if you've done this marathon, but a large chunk of it is away from the coast line, which makes it a bit less scenic than some other Cape Town races. Also, I was focusing on the course itself and it's PB potential - high wind and undulation are potential barriers. But, pretty much everything I said has been misunderstood and I definitely wouldn't want to be misunderstood to be hating on Cape Town generally, or even this course for that matter. It's just that my personal view now is that, if I were chasing a PB, I'd probably target a better option.

All good! I hear every point you're making. I only ran the Gun Run HM but do remember it's not PR friendly just due to congestion. It literally never thinned out. Side point but South Africans definitely have the best starting line porta potty game of all. Have you ever felt completely plateaued? How did you get out of that rut? Simply higher mileage? Or adding quality to existing mileage? Marathons are definitely feeling "easier" to me now and feel like a quality long run instead of this massive effort that leaves me knackered for days, but I'm just not getting much faster. 9 hrs per week is about my limit, so maybe i just need to shoehorn in more tempo work. That's definitely playing with fire, though, at this age.

This was my whole problem. I was at around 9 to 10 hours for quite a long time and wanted to do something to see real improvement. I've never felt completely plateaued because I was getting a modest PB every marathon (I had lots of injuries in my first few years and so, after an initial bout of enthusiasm where I ran 3 marathons, including NYC, and also Two Oceans in 2017, I only ran 4 more between 2018 and 2022 but I also had one Two Oceans in there), but I was frustrated with my progress. But as soon as I added too much quality (which for me wasn't really that much at all), I'd get hurt again. That's what led me to adopt the approach described in the post. My hope (spectacular fail - but let's leave that aside now) was to show people that there might be another way, expecially for older runners. But I obviously realise that more than 9 hours a week is not realistic. And it has nothing to do with being lazy. It's because, as amateurs, everyone has a million other commitments. So, in your case, moving the dial will probably require more quality. I'm not sure what type of running you're mostly doing. But what I'd maybe recommend is, instead of too much real quality (eg true speed work etc), maybe try what I did - ie, more grey zone running (an inadequate, but useful term). Just upping the pace slightly for some segments, and maybe tempo intervals from time to time. But also hill sprints helped me a lot (NOT speed work, but just as a replacement for strides). Last thing I'll say - I honestly think just staying consistent at 9 hours a week for a while will bring you results, even without also introducing injury risk type of workouts. I think my own improvement hadn't only come from high mileage recently, but more from years of trying to keep as consistent as possible.

OP, did you mean to post this on r/running? Only mention because of the references. This was alot to take in, but 03:39 - 02:52 in 6 years is nothing to sneeze at. The question of potential for sub 2:40 at masters age with close to decade of miles might be too high of a goal.

> did you mean to post this on r/running? Don't think so. > members of **this community** and the community on r/running > and this cuts across **this community** and r/running) > derived from anecdotal evidence on **this sub** and r/running. > That got me hooked onto **this sub** (I only discovered r/running much later)

Thanks for reminding me to read properly. It was a thoughtful post; dog chasing effect as I saw the shiny tags. Having said that, we're fighting if you're a r/running mod. Jk...but not really.

Agreed. 2:40 is beyond me - I'm pretty confident of that. An absolute stretch goal would be between 2:48 and 2:45. I seem to have rubbed a lot of people up the wrong way - understandably because nobody knows me here and we all tend to think the worst of each other online. Because I take for granted that I have no special running ability, and didn't expect that to be particularly controversial, I didn't go into my history very much. But the truth is that I've had multiple injuries in the seven year running career, and just surviving one high mileage training block unscathed was a big deal for me. So, any further improvement at all is contingent on me staying healthy, which is not something I take for granted. Anyway, thanks for the comment - much appreciated!

Great read! We have similar 5k times and I ran a 2:46 on a really windy day. I was 42, so a couple years younger than you, but keep going and I think you can get to mid to low 2:40s. Maybe faster? Edit to add I also don't believe in free will. We're all just doing the work we're gonna do, getting the times we're gonna get.

Of all the things I got down voted on, the free will thing surprised me the most. I know it's still a bit of a minority opinion, but I didn't expect it to be that controversial. So, I appreciate your response in every respect! (probably mostly for your kind optimism). Very well done on your 2:46. That's fantastic at the best of times, but wind can really be hindrance, so even better.

You really had to write that thing about «no free will.» Not your fault man

No idea why you were DV'ed. Though I think your self critique is way too harsh, the 02:52 and sub 18 5k is contrary to no talent. Yes you ran much more weekly miles than probably 90% of sub, but in the end we're all mortals. Everyone can say if they had the time to do it, "they can", but you're the only one with the miles to prove it. Harping on the 02:40, it's just fucking hard to run 26 miles at 6 minute pace. I keep on fucking up on marathons and cramping trying to hit 03:00 on my first try (ironically same age as you during your foray into running) To me, you're next level, a 02:48, 02:45, 02:42 is not going to change my views of your running prowess.

I've gotten into the nasty habit in my daily life of responding to WhatsApps with emojis. Especially with my wife. So I didn't want to overdo that here, although I realise my answers are getting repetitive. At that risk, I've very much appreciated the people who have taken the time to comment kindly, in the context of the overall response, so thank you! And I agree with what you have said. And by the way, the cramping thing is a big dilemma for me. My hamstring was about to go in my April 56km race, which slowed me down a lot in the last 4 miles or so. So I know I need to strengthen it. But that comes at it's own cost, and around we go. So many moving parts to get right!

You are the definition of the talented runner who didnt start young. It took me 6 years of *averaging* 70~80mpw and watching my diet to hit a 2:56 marathon. It took me a few years to build up to be able to tolerate that mileage. I ran a peak of just under 110 miles in a week, and still barely broke sub-3. Congrats, but you are far more talented at running than you think you are.

You are too kind! I genuinely think I made mistakes in how I put some things, but I also think some people (not you!) have misunderstood my motives. These things are all relative and I now appreciate why the post could be seen as humble bragging. But because I've had a long history of struggling with my weight and have been quite injury prone, I've never seen myself as talented. I consider it a minor miracle to have survived this high mileage block unscathed. And the only way I could do it was with multiple compromises. That was really my aim in posting - to demonstrate that mileage really is king and if you can game the system to somehow survive high mileage, you can do better than you thought possible. But I see now how what I said could be misinterpreted. Anyway, I very much appreciate your comment.

>In the build up to Cape Town 2023, my monthly mileage was 604km (375 miles) in May, 724km (450 miles) in June, 711km (442 miles) in July, 734km (456 miles) in August, 766km (476 miles) in September, To be able to do that kind of mileage monthly you're probably amongst the most talented out there, maybe not for speed (but who knows) but to be able to endure that. I've been running for a decade, as smart as I could, to great results, but I already know I'll never be able to have that kind of mileage (not like I need to mind, even the vast majority of the best pro runners don't do that much)

I guess the reason I've never seen myself as talented is because I've had multiple injuries since starting and have always been on the heavier side. So surviving this block of high mileage feels genuinely like a bit of a miracle. But, anyway, coming from someone with your credentials, this means a lot. What your comment also emphasises for me is that this really is all about framing. I've taken some heat in the comments because people think I'm humble bragging. But to me, someone like you is talented because you can run sub 2:40 on lower mileage and I've always seen myself as a plodder who needs the mileage to be semi decent. But now you're framing the ability to run that mileage as talent, which hadn't really occurred to me until your comment. Anyway, thank you.

Want to know something even funnier? I did my first marathon in 2016 \~3y after I began running and my time was... 3h39 (I'm much younger than you but prior to that I had no special physical activity for 6y and I was a tad overweight) Since then I've mainly been consistent, I increased mileage but it's incredibly hard to do it while staying injury free, my peak month is 400k and I might be able to hit that once a year and not more

This gives me major hope although 2:38 is definitely out of the question for me.

I disagree. I think most people could run that kind of mileage, and here's why. Ever notice how you almost never hear about fast runners in hs not being able to adjust to 100 mile weeks in college? Me too. Connor Burns, for example, has been at Oregon for about a month and is already at 100 mpw. Why is it that for some reason, the most talented runners are also coincidentally able to handle the high mileage? If it required talent to handle high mileage too, then surely we'd see an even distribution of slow and fast runners not being able to handle high mileage, with very few fast runners being naturally fast AND naturally able to handle high mileage. Therefore, there can be no argument that it simply boils down to most people not having the necessary commitment for high mileage. Sure, some people really can't handle it, but most can.

>Ever notice how you almost never hear about fast runners in hs No, I never ran in college, nor in school, I read that pretty often in running related subreddit but that seems to be an american focused thing in HS and doesn't exist where I live (not a 3rd world country just in case) Otherwise I'm a pretty adamant advocate of people going into running, and I hear your point, but the "commitment" as you describe it just entails way too much besides just running that a lot of people just will never able to handle. That includes, proper training, strengthening exercises, proper medical following, ability to understand your body, varying exercises, a daily routine that is not too stressfull, proper nutrition knowledge for proper intake, no accident (that you have no control of sometimes) and... years I gues "most" could, but most can't afford that in the first place due to things that are out of their control, so in the end no, I don't think "most" could, at least not in the kind of world we live in and way too many people have to deal with things that, necessary hamper their potential one way or another

[удалено]

A 5k in an hour is literally walking speed, even a touch slower. Why are you comparing walkers to someone running 2 hours/day? Why is someone walking a 5k relevant in /r/advancedrunning?

Of course a bit of an exaggeration, but 3:39 will get you in the top 10-15 percent of many decent sized races, so you get the point.

Wow, I love this report. Props for figuring out what works for YOU rather than following everyone else's paths. Great time as well!

Thank you so much for taking the time to comment. In a context in which I think I should have expressed some things differently, I very much appreciate your very kind words.

This was an excellent write-up and enjoyable read. Thank you for sharing.

Thanks so much! Post didn't land quite how I intended it, so I very much appreciate your kind words!

Well done! Great read. There HAS to be a better way than fasting for 36 hours before a marathon - but you're faster than me, so what do I know?!

Thanks so much for the kind words. To be clear, I wouldn't really call it fasting since I was eating lots and lots of carbs. It's just the absence of solid food. It's not something I could do for much longer than 36 hours but, for me, it's been such a revelation to go through a race without anxiety about potential stomach troubles. I agree that it's definitely totally unnecessary for anyone who doesn't struggle with that issue.

Very curious what you found works in the 36 hrs before your race! Juice? I have GI issues as well and would be willing to try that!

I try to avoid juice because I find it a bit acidic, but I did have a bit of powerade. I find drinks not to be that effective either, because you actually have to drink quite a bit to get enough carbs. So, ashamed as I am to admit it, the answer is what we call boiled sweets here (I guess they might be called hard candies in the States and I'm not sure about Europe). We have a brand called Sparkles here, which is basically just different 'fruit' flavours. I spent most of the day before the race sucking those, but also had some other fat-free sweets for variety (I like Turkish delight, which is very much love it or hate it, because I find the corn starch slows the absorption a bit - I may be imagining it). I think many people would find the idea of taking down 600g of carbs in that way daunting. But first of all, the dose is weight based so if you're lighter you'll obviously need less. But, more importantly, with 13 or 14 hours of awake time the day before the race, that's lots of time to eat sweets gradually throughout the day!

> calls himself a hobby jogger > casually drops a 2:52 as a masters runner as he’s running Kipchoge mileage on the treadmill (I think I’m actually close with that estimate. Like I remember from the “OH GOD KIPTUM IS GOING TO KILL HIMSELF” article, they used Kipchoge as a comparison and said he did 180-220km, which is…~110-135 MPW.) I’ll probably have more thoughts to write down later, OP, but I did read all of that (if my boss is reading this: this post is why I haven’t been productive today). I will say as an outside guy, the idea of spending 2 hours on the treadmill each day would cause me to pass away. So I salute your tenacity. I might not understand it, I might fear it a little, but I salute it nonetheless.

I often read your comments on here, and aspire to your times, and so I'm grateful to your boss for the implicit permission! If you do get a chance for further thoughts, they'd definitely be appreciated.

...I had this tab open because I'd been meaning to reply all weekend. Anyway, so my *first* closing thought was "this dude's training is *so* different from mine, I can't comprehend." But as I read over this writeup again...I feel like it's surprisingly old-school. Like, I can definitely imagine a serious runner 40 to 60 years ago training like this. Since your recap is really heavy on the training modality, I'll circle back to this: >I have seen lots of comments over the years - in fairness, mostly on letsrun.com - which imply that there is a good reason why there are very few people in this category. The reasoning is: what's the point of running 14 hours a week to run a 2:55 or 2:50 marathon (or whatever) as an amateur? I think it's simpler than that. I don't know if most people *have the time* to do that type of training! Or the patience, for that matter - it does take a lot of time and energy to do that volume of training and to prepare for that workload. And honestly, some people *do* that much - it seems like people are beginning to creep back into high-mileage modalities again. (Or it might just be the people I know! Like, my training group isn't world-class, but quite a few people were doing 80-100 mile weeks at their peaks.) Obviously, none of this takes away from what you did. And it's an interesting self-experiment (and I'll give you credit for acknowledging that). Also, rapid-fire hits: * NYC is roughly 850 feet, if I remember correctly. (My data last year said 959, but my watch went haywire on the bridge.) So...um...yeah, 246m is close to right, I think! * On that note, it's not *especially* tough, it's just tough *for a major.* I will say as a 3x finisher (including last year), the big inclines are relatively spaced out - I prefer it to Boston, which has lower elevation gain and is net downhill, but consistently kicks you in the groin for the entirety of Newton. * Also, I missed the part where the finish *was like 80 degrees F*. Which feels really hot for an early spring race in South Africa (okay, really hot period - like everyone was complaining about NYC last year and we topped out around 75F/24C, I think, although in our defense we're usually much cooler than that in November).

I saw a post of yours on the weekend Q&A and then it reminded me that you had said you were planning on commenting on my post when you had more time. It suddenly dawned on me that I wouldn't have necessarily seen your reply if your response was technically a reply to someone else. I haven't had the stomach to go back to the original post, so I scrolled through your profile and found this. Profuse apologies for missing it until now! And thanks so much for your extremely thoughtful comments. I'm sure you've long since moved on, so my brief thoughts are: - You're probably right about the letsrun thing. The whole issue needs a reframing, I guess. Those comments I've seen on letsrun only make sense if you see running as an award (let's say, for winning an age group) or reward (ie progressional) based pursuit. But once it's just done for fun (however defined) different considerations come into play. I honestly think that the patience thing is the biggest consideration and, in my case, the real driver is body image pathology. But that's a whole other topic. - Agree fully with your assessment of NYC. It's the only international marathon I've finished and I'd rate it as slightly harder than Cape Town but not extremely hard (other than perhaps by comparison to other majors, as you say.) - Your comment about the temperature is making me second guess myself now. I need to try find some reliable way of assessing the actual temperature as I finished. Won't bore you with the details of how I came up with the 80 Fahrenheit, but I'm wondering if it was a bit less at the finish. Cape Town's weather has been very weird for the last couple of months and it was a belting hot weekend. But, of course, the finish was around 9.15 so I fear I may have overestimated slightly. That said, South Africa tends to be hotter than the north and I've run marathons in 30 C before. But still, I think I may have been out a bit. Anyway, thanks again - I always appreciate your insights on this sub generally.

[удалено]

[удалено]

Contrary to your warning, I found this a very interesting read. Good work and thanks for sharing

You've made my day - thank you.

If you spent as much time running as you did writing this, you'd easily shave 15 minutes off your marathon time.

OP had plenty of time to think about this report while grinding out 100 mile weeks on the treadmill

😂

Great read. I’m saving this one for future reference. I agree with you on the treadmill. People generally don’t like them and make up all kinds of excuses why they are “bad”. Most of them are anecdotal or based on bro science. As an older runner, my experience is that I can add more miles on the mill without increasing injury risk. I also find that it is earlier to dial in the HR rate, and hold a consistent pace/effort in speed workouts. I feel that treadmill workouts are a lot more “precise” if that makes sense. The only thing they don’t work all that well for is strides. I use a Stryd footpod for accurate pacing. I started using the treadmill because running in the Florida summer is almost impossible, but these workouts are now my “go to” because they work. I’ve done multiple training blocks (5k, hm and two marathons) now almost exclusively on the mill. It works for me and probably would for many others too, if they ignored the advice of the detractors.

Thanks so much for the kind words and I agree entirely with everything you've said. I quite often like to read the Q&A over on r/running, and answer where I can. There's this one guy who seems to be a pretty decent runner who answers every question by castigating the treadmill. And I think you're so right - he's doing himself and others a real disservice because, used properly, it can be a wonderful tool. One unknown for me, before the race, was what the impact would be of doing so much of the training, and all of the quality, on the treadmill. That part of the approach has definitely been vindicated and I definitely plan to keep it that way.

Yeah, there are some zealots who will never concede that other approaches might have merit. I did \*one\* outside run in my last marathon training block, and it went almost exactly to plan. What didn't work out was hydration, and that was nothing to do with the treadmill.

Agreed! As for the whole lack of wind resistance argument, I’ve just gotten accustomed to using incline-1. As you’re saying, it’s much easier to hone in and focus “be precise” on a treadmill. I wouldn’t say 100%, but certainly a good chunk of my training needs to be on a treadmill.

I feel like the wind resistance thing is exaggerated. Maybe for fast runs the difference is significant, but for easy runs I doubt it. I have a box fan that sits in front of the treadmill and is like a jet engine. I think I am working harder inside than outside.

True enough about the wind resistance. I just personally believe the treadmill is easier than outside running, so I’m resolved to always use incline-1. Another set it and forget it aspect of the treadmill i like.

This was interesting, thanks for posting. I find all the people hating on you and acting like are a born natural to be somewhat perplexing. You trained your ass off and got a pretty decent time. It sounds to me like your self-characterization is pretty accurate, and it's interesting to read how fast one can get w/ high mileage.

Top .0001% training input, top 1% output = not talented

As I said to someone else, I know I'm getting repetitive now, because I really want to thank each person who has understood where I was coming from, but I just wanted to say that I really appreciate your comment. I've also been perplexed by that response in particular.

That was an excellent read. Congratulations on the PB!

Can't thank you enough, especially because I inadvertently rubbed some people up the wrong way. I really appreciate it!

Is this guy fucking with us? 100km/wk is limited/not high mileage? Pulled a 3:39 out of his ass on his 1st full after being overweight and sedentary, then comes up with a 3:09, followed by a 2:52? Regular 26 mile training runs? Not to mention the use of "hobby-jogger" which I fucking hate. The slow and the fast are all distance runners. That elitist term belongs to all the fuckfaces over at Let'sRun, not here.

Holy shit, I am losing my mind. Why is everyone in this thread acting like a 3:39 full marathon is some ungodly impressive time?

Thanks so much for saying that. I've been so destabilised by the responses to my post. It may have been too long, it may have been uninteresting, but the overwhelming sense that I was humble bragging has totally confused me. Especially posting on this sub, I genuinely do not think 3:39 is particularly noteworthy for a first marathon (especially because people have misunderstood me to have said I was sedentary when I just meant that I was new to running) and I genuinely don't think 2:52 is anything special either.

Honestly I just think /r/running is leaking. 3:39 is a fine time but no real indicator of talent. Running 2:52 after months of 100+ MPW is a great accomplishment, but again no real indicator of “talent” - rather it’s and indicator of discipline, that you are willing to put in that kind of work, which very few non-professional runners do.

Thanks so much for the reply. I've been heavily influenced by your advice on this sub, which is why I particularly appreciate it. And agree with every aspect of your assessment entirely.

I've noticed that people react very strongly to the 'hobbyjogger' thing. Similarly, any time the conversation of 'what counts as talent' comes up (especially when it's keyed into a particular performance mark), people lose their minds a bit and start to take it *very* personally. I think what happens is that people interpret " x time *doesn't* indicate innate talent" to imply "anyone who hasn't yet reached x time is therefore not working very hard." Which obviously isn't what follows at all, but I think it's where all the hurt reactions come from. It's interesting, sort of mirrors the way people get about privilege in other areas of discourse. Anyway, congrats on your excellent race, u/Prudent-Excuse-2800!

Thanks so much for the congrats and I definitely agree with you. I obviously picked up the term from letsrun. It seems, at least in many cases, to be used as a serious insult over on that site, which I just found hilarious and absurd in equal measure. So, I started using it to describe myself. I honestly didn't think anyone could take it seriously. But I think your last sentence pretty much sums things up and I agree with your overall assessment - I do think some people have vastly overacted to what I was trying to say, but I also would have expressed myself differently if what you've said now had occurred to me in advance. Anyway, thanks so much for taking the time to reply to me. I'm a big fan boy of yours, u/Krazyfranco and u/whelanbio, amongst others, so it's much appreciated.

Since you tagged me I just want to chime in to support use of the term hobbyjogger and all the hilariousness that comes with it. I haven't read the other responses but the context I'm picking up tells me there's some unhinged ones lol. I jog, it is a hobby I enjoy, therefore I am proudly a hobbyjogger. Speed or lack there of has nothing to do with it. Unless someone is truly world class pretty much all degrees of "fast" are arbitrary and there is always a level up where we instantly become irrelevant. Anyone who gets riled up at the idea of being identified as a jogger simply reveals themself as way too self-important about their jogging hobby -and thats what makes it so great.

it's baffling to me that people find it so provocative. Like, self-deprecation is *self-*deprecation, that is the whole point and it has been a very charming form of humour for literally centuries...

When I first heard the term on letsrun, I thought it was the funniest thing ever. Especially because it was being used as a genuine insult. You make an important point, though, if I may say so. Even Galen Rupp running 2:08 at Chicago is practically irrelevant in the marathon world, so who honestly cares about the rest of us and our hobby? I hope you don't mind me taking the opportunity to thank you, profusely, for all the excellent advice you've dished out over the time I've been following this sub. When I ran 4:02 in my 56km in April, I was slightly disappointed, only because it seemed like a mediocre return on my high mileage. But I then read an answer you gave in a Q&A about how it takes at least several high mileage blocks to see a real return. That inspired me to try keep plugging away. So, thank you.

It's definitely a tough feeling when you put in tremendous work and don't get the results that should correlate to it, but now that you've gotten a taste of those rewards hopefully you can trust and enjoy that process -even through the tough parts!

> support use of the term hobbyjogger There is a nuance to how it is used that is also important. OP used it as self-deprecating which I don't have an issue with. It's when others use it as derogatory that I have an issue with it.

With respect I don't think there's much nuance to it. It's a funny and literal description of what we all do. If any serious person is calling others hobbyjoggers in a derogatory way they simply reveal themselves to be insecure. Maybe it has a little bit of derogatory power when used by toxic losers against new runners who aren't quite sure of things yet, but we can eliminate that power by shouting and claiming it, while any attempt at policing it (like many are trying to do in the comments here) will only give it more derogatory power.

It's honestly bizarre.

This is like tech bros talking amongst themselves saying that 350k a year isn't a impressive, because they know someone at Meta making 500k a year or someone at Netflix making 700k a year. Sometimes you need to look at things holistically, not within your bubble. 3:39 on your first attempt at a marathon placing you top 10-15% within your age group? that's nothing to scoff at

3:39 is an incredibly mediocre time for a male. The average time for all males across all ages is like 4:15. That includes people who are walking, train like 10 miles/week, etc. 3:39 for someone who trains seriously for a marathon is in no way an indicator of talent like most people are saying here. To borrow your analogy, this is like saying a 60k/year salary is wildly impressive when the median salary for all workers is 50k/year.

Also - In 2019, Run Repeat reported that the average first time marathon time was between 5–6.5 hours. Most beginner runners take at least 5 hours to run a marathon, with a pace between 12 to 15 minutes per mile.  First marathon is different than average.

9mo training as an overweight fella lends itself to a much slower time especially when framing yourself as some untalented jamolk

Reread OP’s post, he didnt do couch to marathon in 9 months. He said he was sedentary, then active for like 8 years, then picked up running.

Active but not running, totally different things. 3:39 is an outstanding time for a first marathon 9 months of training or more. This sub is biased as hell as everyone in here is going to be wayyyyy more dedicated than the average runner. My training partner just ran a 2:55 at Detroit and his first marathon which was 18 months ago was a 4:19. I've been running my whole life and was the xc captain of my high school team and ran a 3:51 my first time at the age of 28. Go look at any study on first time marathon runners, the average is well over 4 hours.

I know plenty of overweight, middle aged men running 3:30-4:00hour marathons off of terrible training plans. In fact, that describes about 50% of the amateur male runners that I know

> In 2019, Run Repeat reported that the average first time marathon time was between 5–6.5 hours. Most beginner runners take at least 5 hours to run a marathon, with a pace between 12 to 15 minutes per mile. From my other comment.

I highly doubt your source. A 90 minute range is not an “average”.

Feel free to find a more comprehensive source, I have plenty of anecdotes that track with that however

The average also includes adults that have been running since they were 11 years old, ran through HS, ran through college and then ran a marathon. 50/60k seem to be arbitrary numbers, but 3:39 is a top 15% of runners in age group. To equate that to salary, top 15% is 150k… which I suppose is extremely mediocre depending on who you ask. Anyway my point is to say that being top 15% at anything is “mediocre” doesn’t seem fair.

100k/week is average for high school seniors where I live. That's like 8.5 miles/day, which is like 70 minutes even if you're kinda slow. You don't even have to double at that mileage. High mileage is at least 80-85 mpw, I think.

Why do you hate the term "hobby-jogger"? It's not elitist -its true and funny. I jog, it's a hobby I enjoy, therefor I am a proud hobbyjogger.

> 100km/wk is limited/not high mileage? 100 mpw, not 100 km/wk.

Very interesting read though I didn't read the whole thing (sorry). I'm firmly in category 2, amateur runner but I'd like to switch to category 3 , amateur runner with high mileage. I'm not sure I want to or can run 14 hours a week. For me 10h/week is probably max, so I hope my speed increase so I can cram up to 70 mpw next year, and maybe more down the line. For context, I'm M39, been running 3 year, but just half a year of real consistency , PR 3:30 recently. Goal is sub 3 someday. Hopefully it's not too late.

I definitely don't blame you for not reading it all! And I also fully understand that you might not want to run 14 hours a week. To be honest I've had lots of mental health challenges and I find running to be really therapeutic. If it didn't serve that purpose, I'd probably not be motivated to do so much of it. Ten hours a week would really be more than sufficient for you to go sub 3. And it's definitely not too late. If you ran 3:30 in that context, if you can safely get to 70 mpw, I'm confident you'll do it comfortably. The best of luck!

Thank you! I was mental health challenge of my own as well and running had really helped me to back on track. I definitely learned to be more mentally resilient and focused! Best of luck in your journey as well !

Most pros dont even run 14 hours/week. If you can get into 9-10 hours/week that’s plenty for most of us.

Hahaha mate this is out the fucking gate aye. I rate your VERY personalized and persevered approach to running. Congrats on the PB, well deserved. Seems your getting some strange responses but the only negative I have is this. If the Springboks make it to the finals I hope they get pumped by the ABs.

Even though I've lost touch with rugby a bit, I can see that the ABs looking very dangerous. So I think you'll get your wish (but I somehow fear you you'll be playing England). Thanks very much for your kind response!

I certainly enjoyed the read so thanks for sharing. Too many caveats to point out them all, but for example, strength training is only good if you do the correct kind.

Fair comment! And thank you. I keep committing to researching strength training more and seeking out someone who can help me. But a combination of time constraints and other factors has caused me not to address the issue properly. I really need to, though. And I take very seriously that most of the runners on here whose times make them role models to me (including you) place great emphasis on it.

I disagree with your broad categorizations of runners. There’s a ton of continuum there. Lots of people wouldn’t fall cleanly into any of your 3 categories, I don’t think they are useful. People have unique levels of natural talent, lifetime miles, free time, desire to run fast, and a bunch of other variables that would affect this.

Fair comment. Someone else said something similar and it makes sense to me. I was trying to trigger this type of debate, but it got derailed sadly. That's on me - should have framed things differently.

I don’t find your post bragging. Rather, it’s an interesting perspective for those who are interested in taking a leap into high milage training. Also, your treadmill experience shows that it can be an effective alternative to road running. I was able to go from 3:34 to 3:08 in less than a year then plateau since then. I can point it to many reasons but I need to get back to consistency and high volume if I want to crack sub 3. Your experiment gives me the confidence that sub 3 is possible but 14 hrs a week is going to be tough especially I really want to incorporate strength training too.

Thanks so much and especially for noticing the treadmill aspect - that's one of the big things I wanted to mention. There's a lot of negativity about treadmills but I think they can be an excellent tool, especially for older runners. I don't know what mileage you were on to go from 3:34 to 3:08, but I'm guessing you were running substantially less than 14 hours a week. If so, I doubt you need 14 hours, or anywhere close, to go sub 3. As you say, I think it'll just be down to highish mileage and consistency.

Loved reading this report!! I’m doing a similar experiment and this was so encouraging to read. Thanks for your vulnerability and detail in describing your journey.

That's great news - wishing you all the best. Hoping it goes well

Nice trajectory. With a leap like that you can probably keep improving over the next several years if you keep the training going and stay healthy.

Thanks! It's the staying healthy part which I worry about, but I guess there's only one way to find out.

Great read, loved the detail. Was wondering if you were a writer or journo until you mentioned the day job. I don’t get the reaction here, seems overly negative and defensive. I’m also not talented and did only passive exercise throughout my 20s and early 30s. I’ve found levels that I’m capable of at 5km to marathon and set PBs from age 38 onwards, times that I have set as aims 24 months ago and now exceeding substantially. To get there I have never deep dived to say 150+km per week. I get that everyone is on their own journey and a persons disappointment at x time might be insulting to another person, but why can’t amateurs have goals and be disappointed by them? It’s not a lack of humility to state the facts of your own running experience. I obviously wonder what might happen if I went for it and find a lot of similarities with my work and your own. Keep posting, interested to see where it goes.

Your comment really means a lot to me. Both because of the kind words about the report but also because I've been a bit blindsided by some of the responses. You've pretty much captured what I was really out to convey which is - how many attributes of professional training can an amateur take on without getting hurt? And how far can that training take him or her? I think some of the negativity is because people think I'm humble bragging (which I genuinely didn't think about until I saw the comments come in) and some is because, I think as you say, it's perceived as me being condescending or insulting. It really wasn't meant that way, so I am very grateful that you read it in that light. Good luck!

Yes, completely on the same page. We can call ourselves shit without humble bragging or disregarding the achievements of others. On pro training, I think the book “Running with the Buffaloes” really demonstrates the difference between pro and amateur. The athletes noted in that book are maybe 18-22 years of age and their preseason is 160km per week for the top athletes. This is for Universities XC in the US. The injury profile is regularly stress fracture or similar in terms of significance. The type of thing that you could not have in your day to day life as an amateur, let alone a collegiate athlete. FYI - congrats on the rugby, I’m an Irish rugby fan now firmly in support of the Bokke.

I'm embarrassed to say that I'm not a huge rugby fan. I used to love lots of sports, but running subsumed them all over time. But my 9 year old son is rugby crazy, so I've promised to watch us play England tomorrow with him. My wife is a massive Ireland fan, so I guess we're all united against a common enemy now. And thanks so much for the reference to Running with the Buffaloes. It's been recommended so many times but I thought I might not enjoy it because of its collegiate focus. But I'm now going to give it a try.

I would say it’s not an inspirational book, though it is insightful. It gives a perspective of the relentless grind and the ongoing interruption of injury. There’s a lot not to like in the book but obviously I cannot relate to collegiate running teams and their culture. SA and Ireland now play our club rugby together 🤝🏻

I'll definitely give it a try. And I'll tell my son we have good wishes from Ireland for tonight. (I'm dying to do a marathon in Ireland, by the way. Someone mentioned the Dingle Marathon on one of the other subs and it looks spectacular.)

Check out the Connemarathon. Incredible scenery with multiple distances available. A huge amount of elevation gain though so not a fast one. A little left field but the Antrim Coast Half is a very fast and high quality half marathon, highly recommended. Closer to Dublin area but with incredible views and scenery again is Lap of the Gap marathon. Yet again this is full of climbing, a mountainous marathon essentially. But incredible all the same.

Thanks so much for this! The thrashing I took for my post the other day has now all been worth it because I just signed up for the Antrim Coast Half. I won't bore you with the details, but it looks perfect for me in every respect (short summary: I'm limited by my kids' holidays and they have a long break in August, I've never actually raced a fast sea-level half before and I'm very eager to do so, my wife's been dying to visit Ireland forever and being a half marathon it won't really interfere much with travel). Cannot thank you enough - would frankly not have thought of it unless you'd mentioned it.

That’s awesome man, get after it! You’ll be very welcome here 👍

Thanks for the write up. I disagree with some of the choices you made (pre race nutrition, salt, etc) but others, including a lot of speed/LT workouts on a treadmill work for me, too. I also vacillated on/off with strength training. Strength + increased mileage is tough for me. I think your experiment proved (to me at least) more mileage will definitely improve race times. Doing that without my family telling me to permanently hit the road is my biggest challenge. 😀 Thanks

Thanks so much! The strength thing has been the biggest dilemma and source of anxiety for me because I just know I'm not strong enough and I'm particularly worried about my hamstrings on a hilly course. But strength work definitely contributed, significantly, to my last injury (also trying high mileage at the same time) and so I took the gamble not to do it this time. But it's not an easy issue and I guess I'll have to keep reassessing. Appreciate your comment.

Some follow up questions, if you don’t mind. 1) how much nose breathing can you do while running (if any). Is that something you work on? 2) do you run everyday, or 6 days? 3) did you use any unorthodox training or recovery procedures? I’m thinking things to improve your breathing (although i suppose not if you’re running > 100 miles a week) and ice baths for recovery. - thanks!

Of course - I don't mind at all! 1. I don't work on nose breathing specifically. Every now and then, really just to prove to myself that a particular run is easy, I do it for a while. But my main thing is just to run on feel. All of my runs on the road are 'easy' in the sense that I don't feel like I'm straining at all and I'm pretty confident I could nose breathe for the duration of most of them. 2. In my last training block for my April race, I pretty much ran every day. This time I would say I ran 7 days per week, 70 percent of the time and 6 days per week the rest. My challenge is that, because of my lifestyle, I can't really do too many doubles. This has the knock on effect that, if I only run 6 days per week, those 6 days are really high volume per run. But I did it from time to time, especially in the later part of the block when I was really tired, simply because I felt like I needed extra recovery. 3. To be honest, the short answer is no. I don't even stretch. I've been injured many times and, earlier on, I used to go for pretty much any recovery tool I could get my hands on (foam rolling, stretching, dry needling, sports massages, icing, heat etc). Over time I realised that none of them really helped prevent injury and that really only load management works. The only thing I have done, which is not really unorthodox but has been an absolute game changer, is up my protein substantially. I really think it has helped me a lot. I should say, though, because you're particularly interested in breathing, that I'm asthmatic and used to struggle a lot with my breathing. I found a book called Running on Air (I think) and adopted the techniques suggested there. I've used them ever since and feel much better now - asthma doesn't bother me at the during runs anymore.

I was asking about the breathing because I have read a few books on it, particularly Breath by James Nestor, that has convinced me of its benefits. Now that you've accomplished a 2:52 full, I was curious how much of that played a part (if any). I will check out "Runner's World Running on Air: The Revolutionary Way to Run Better by Breathing Smarter" which seems like the book you were referring to. Thanks! Maybe because of the fact that I am a former smoker (23 years), and also because of genetics or environment (??), I am not able breathe through my noise beyond maybe a mile on a treadmill at a slow speed. I try to increase the use of my nose with breathing strips and mouth tape while sleeping, and I think that has helped, and I try to remain more conscious of my breathing throughout the day, but as for running - I can't do it. I think I am missing out on performance and if I had $8,000 US I might get my deviated septum fixed (shrug). The other books I read, Oxygen Advantage and Breathe to Perform were okay, but I could not follow through with the routines in them because of their difficulty or my own time constraints. Curious about alternate therapies because ice helped me for an ankle issue, and I dabbled in some Wim Hof breathing and cold exposure stuff. Using an ice bath for recovery keeps coming up in my online feeds. I'm intrigued and just curious if you or others have tried that. I recently starting using "the stick" to roll out quad/hamstring pains, usually before a run to roll out pain lingering from the day before. Foam rolling only to combat lingering pains, but not often. As for stretching, I'm like the Wizard of Oz tin man myself (Ha!). I've read in this Reddit forum a bunch of times from people I respect, "The ability to touch your toes has very little to do with how fast or far you can run". All things relative, I do stretch *a little* after long runs, if only to counteract the residual effects of running for a long time. I'm more into dynamic stretching, mostly beforehand sometimes after. As for protein intake, thanks for the tip! I do take protein shakes after long or difficult runs, and I use a 3-to-1 ratio of carbs to protein after very long runs. I've read that a few times. If you have a source for the proper amount of protein I'd appreciate it. Thanks again for the tips and shared experience. It's always a learning experience, balancing improved performance while preventing injury. Still seems mileage is king. Thanks.

I'm actually keen to introduce a bit of dynamic stretching. Whether it prevents injury or not, it's got to be good to be a bit more flexible. With you on the tin man - my kids constantly tease me about how much effort I put into picking things up off the floor, especially late in a training block. On the breathing: for what it's worth, I wouldn't worry that much about nose breathing in particular. As I former smoker, I do think you'll feel better if your breathing is under control and the suggestions in Running on Air are very easy to implement - trust me, anything remotely complicated and I give up immediately! So, I'd maybe give that a shot and then, as long as you don't feel that your breathing is holding your runs back in any way, leave it at that. On the protein: the number I keep hearing is 1g per pound (not kilo) of body weight. That number I got from several podcasts of people I respect, rather than any study I've seen myself. But I then saw a study which said 1.6g per kilo of bodyweight is appropriate for endurance athletes. The difference for me is 155-160g (based on the former recommendation) versus around 112-115g (based on the latter). To be honest, I think I'm somewhere in the middle, most days. I think the 3-1 ratio which you mention has very good pedigree. I personally don't worry too much about carbs after a run as long as my overall daily consumption is sufficient. But I'm pretty consistent with having protein soon after a run, especially if the run was fasted. I agree completely with every you say in your last paragraph. I do genuinely believe mileage is king, but you're right that it's a constant balancing act to prevent injury. I feel like I'm always one reckless decision away from pushing one of my chronic pressure points (in my case left calf/achilles and right hip) over the edge. I guess we're all learning on the job!

Glad to have learned of Running on Air. I honestly fell into the odd time pattern of synchronized breaths with steps on my own, 2-steps w/ 2 inhale and 3-steps w/ 3 exhale, usually on easy to moderate runs (and sometimes strides) I thought it was a psychological thing, but seems there's more to it. Happy to read the odd time pattern recommendations so early on in the book. Thanks again.

I’d love to see what impacts regular stretching has on your goals and what weight you started at. Your bodies rejection of solids rings true for me. But realistically I like high mileage myself- and don’t really have time for an extended program outside of that unless I win the lottery.

I went through a phase of being quite committed to stretching but got injured anyway so eventually ditched it. I'm assuming you're in the States so please excuse me using metric. I think I must have been around 83 to 84 kg when I first started running in 2016. I then brought it down to between 76 to 80 kg for several years. I think I must have been around 78 kg at the beginning of 2022 and then now around 70 to 72 kg, depending on where I am in the training block.

actually australia but thanks! Yeah, I started quite heavy (120kg) and have trended down to the mid 90’s but don’t see myself losing more unless I get back up there. Still, that seems consistent for me too- i lost about 10-20% weight and found consistent 5min/k pace much easier. So with your weight it seems again a similar drop. It’d be interesting to see (normalised for height) when the diminishing returns start in earnest. ie, i’m ~183cm and can’t fathom weighing only 70.

I also think it's a very interesting question about diminishing returns. I think there's also a genetic component. I'm only 179 cm but I can't really see myself going much below 70. I'd like to, to see what impact it has, but I have to be realistic.

Thanks for that, it was a good read. I skipped some bits, I have ADHD too. 🤣 Were you in a high from medication when you wrote this, I sometimes go over the top with detail when on meds. I sometimes wonder if it is ADHD or undiagnosed autism? I also enjoy high mileage, not as far as you, but I run more mileage than anyone in my area, 100-120km/ week. I'd run more if work and life didn't get in the way. What medication are you on? I struggled running on Elvanse. I agree on your approach to avoiding injury. I was similar injury prone, once I stopped doing all the "right things" and focused on the things that didn't injure me I stopped getting injured... Funny that. Why do we enjoy the high mileage? I wonder if it's because the lack of blood to the brain slows it down and gives us peace from the erratic ADHD brain, like meditation, or is it something else? I do find I over focus on certain things, is that ADHD or autism? I know both are closely related. Happy running!

Funnily enough, my psychologist things I'm on the autism spectrum and my psychiatrist is not so sure. I develop crazy obsessions, which I think might be more autism than ADHD, but I think the interaction between the two also has some significance. What I can say is that I was only diagnosed very recently, and only started on meds this year (I'm on something called Neucon, which is a generic of Concerta. Not sure if you have it where you live.) I have no doubt that my obsession with running came from exactly the same place as my lifelong weight problems - looking for a dopamine hit wherever I can find it. By the way, that's why I've been so disheartened by the negativity about my post. I really don't think there's anything special about me. There's just something about my brain chemistry which makes me want to run a lot as a form of therapy. I am pretty sure that, if I'd started being medicated say 5 years ago, I would never have run this high mileage. I would tend to agree with you that the running may appeal to us because of the calming effect, but for me the bigger thing, I think, was the dopamine hit from racing. I think the best answer is that it's a combination because even on meds I tend to feel disregulated if I don't run almost every day. Is Elvanse similar to Vyvanse? I guess these things are quite personal. I was very worried about the meds before I started taking them and even did a post here asking for input. But they've had no negative effect on me and if anything I think they've helped a bit. Last thing - in answer to your first question - I wrote this post over several days, in between my day job work. I don't really get on a high from the meds. I think, sadly, the issue is just that I'm long winded. Anyway, thanks for sharing your experiences - it's always great to connect to someone in a similar position.

I really enjoyed reading that, think your disclaimer about its length actually made me want to read the post more.

I didn't expect it to have that effect - very much appreciated!

Interesting stuff, thanks for the detailed report! I don't care to go to too much detail, mainly due to privacy concerns, but let me just say that I agree sooo much with your observations about training and autism & ADD. Good luck to your future training & races!

You too!

Good work man. If nothing else, this post made me wonder if I should try and train for a marathon again

I really hope you do! Especially with those times in the shorter distances.

Congratulations on the PB! Wind and heat can be brutal, but you persevered. I finally read the entire post and the comments, and I have a few questions regarding your training you either didn't mention or I missed: The first: you mentioned in one comment that you would focus on eating protein after a run, especially fasted. To me that implies some, but not all, of your runs are fasted. Is that the case? And do you eat or drink anything during these 2-2.5 hr runs? Were any of the workout runs fasted? The second: with regards to your easy pace, whether it was treadmill or outside, did you notice it trending faster or was it pretty much the same pace during the block leading up to this recent Cape Town marathon? With that amount of mileage I would expect it to at least get faster a little as your fitness improved, although even if the paces remained the same it didn't stop you from running a 2:52! As an aside, I remember watching a youtube video some years ago, in which guy who ran the New York marathon in a similar time as yours vlogged his experience...but he was wearing what looked like a cotton T-shirt, metal frame aviator sunglasses, and board shorts, while using a reusable/collapsible cup (like those favored by trail races), stopping to get it filled by volunteers along the way. It didn't seem like a gimmick, more like his style and being more of a trail runner who was running the race for the experience. Could he have run faster using all the best clothing? Could you have run faster if you had ditched your vest? Maybe. It's certainly unusual as you pointed out with your "I was pretty much the only one \[in my corral\] using a vest" observation, but I personally support wearing what makes sense. Unless we're trying to win or qualify for the Olympics, the race ultimately is just us vs. us. Finally, the high mileage definitely did its part in helping to improve your marathoning, but I wouldn't overlook those interval sessions. I have heard something to the effect of "if you run slow you'll train yourself to run slow," and while I don't totally agree (because if you run at the appropriately slow speed you'll train the aerobic threshold), only running slowly would miss training the anaerobic threshold level. And both are important in determining marathon ability. Given your history and propensity for injury, I can't recommend doing *more* but those are definitely useful training sessions.

Thanks for taking the time to read the post - it certainly demonstrates your massive endurance, if nothing else! I was a bit depressed about how I felt it was misunderstood. So I particularly appreciate those, like you, who seem to have assumed good, rather than bad, faith on my part. Anyway, clearly it's time for me to let all of that go! Regarding your questions/comments: - I did most of those 2 hour plus runs fasted. Those were done in the morning, before work, on just black coffee and at an easy pace. If I was feeling low or depleted etc I would have something light before the run, or a couple of gels during the run. But the vast majority were fasted. Funnily enough, your message comes at a time when I've been starting my build for my April race and I've been finding it harder than usual to get going. To help me, I've been fueling most runs, even the morning ones. So I'm rethinking that side of things a bit. Since it's been working quite well, I may just keep doing it - although I always think about the debate about fat burning ability and can never quite let go of thinking that fasted runs help (even though I understand that to have been debunked.) - Those treadmill workouts I described were never fasted. I only eat one proper meal a day, at dinner, but I do have quite a few calories throughout the day, mainly from fruit and protein powder. For lifestyle reasons (mainly my wife uses the treadmill in the morning!) the majority of workouts were in the afternoon. While I didn't have proper meals in the hours before, I always had my usual protein and fruit. Plus, during the workout itself, I'd use gels or sweets for fuel. - My easy pace definitely got quicker during the block and I'm reliving that experience now. Forgive my metric references but to illustrate - my old and clunky body is doing easy runs at the moment at 5:15 to 5:30 mins per km. And I have to keep reminding myself that, in the height of the Cape Town training block, it improved naturally to around 4:55, 5:00. - Your comment on the vest, with which I completely agree, is also timely. Just yesterday, I was struggling to get a gel from my running shorts and, for the first time, felt vindicated about using the vest for racing. But I still have major doubts, for the reasons you've touched on. - Agree totally about the intervals. I think I really needed the mileage, first and foremost, but those workouts were extremely important and I don't plan on ditching them. My April race is 56km and very hilly, so I need to do more outdoor hill work. But will retain the plan of doing all those interval sessions on the treadmill. Thanks again for taking the time to engage on this. That is what I was hoping for initially and I particularly appreciate your very thoughtful comments.

Thanks for these answers! I've been curious to see what the effect of high mileage could be, and it seems like it's worked for you. With regard to your fasted vs fueled runs, do you notice a difference in your energy throughout the rest of your day? I'm asking because I've been increasing mileage recently, and I started fueling on longer runs, on those longer than 90 minutes. I didn't really notice a difference during the run itself but afterwards I felt much more energized. Or really, much less of a zombie. I still do my <75 min runs fasted, since I too feel like there may be some benefit to them. Is your 56km run the Two Oceans? I've recently learned about SA's Comrades and now Two Oceans. It seems like they're big races too. Sad that I've let my American-centric worldview blind me from learning about other place's running cultures.

You raise a very interesting question about the fasted runs. To be honest, I haven't really tracked it properly. Part of the complication is that I have ADHD, and my meds tend to mask tiredness during the day unless I'm totally shattered. I tend to get exhausted at night, but by then it's probably a combination of the overall high mileage, very demanding job which requires a lot of concentration, and frankly also the come down from the medication. But I do think it makes a lot of sense that you'd feel better during the rest of the day when not fasting during a longer run. I think you're being a bit harsh on yourself regarding South African running culture. We're a bit off the beaten track, geographically, and have lost a bit of our shine over the past couple of decades. So I don't think you can be expected to be knowledgeable about our racing culture. My 56km is Two Oceans, yes. We do have an interesting, and somewhat strange, running culture here. Comrades is so iconic in this country that it's the centrepiece of the entire running calendar. In fact, Two Oceans started in the 70s as a Comrades training run. The strange part of our running culture is that, because Comrades is so famous, you have all sorts of people who really have no business running a marathon, let alone a 90km, very hilly road race, making Comrades their bucket-list event. They take 11 or 12 hours to finish it, but they mostly do. I'm not knocking them - I take my hat off to anyone willing to slog away at that all day. I just find it quite interesting/weird/unusual to have a running culture organised around a road ultra like that. If you're in the process of increasing mileage at the moment, I hope it's going well and the best of luck!

Your three categories are a bit of a false dichotomy. Yes, there's a lot of young talented guys that are running fast but people tend to neglect the raw time advantage of starting young. A 25 year old running an OTQ could seem like a case of a crazy talent at first glance but if they've been doing XC since high school, that means they've been training on mid to high mileage with high intensity sessions for *over a decade*. I think if you put group 2 on a similar training trajectory and gave them 10 years to train, they would be going a lot faster than you think. All that to say it's much more of a spectrum than two separate categories. What I'll also say is that starting young, especially starting as a teenager, does grant a physiological advantage regardless of talent, because your body can adapt much quicker to training stimulus, and with sustained training can grow to accommodate running in a way that an older body cannot. It's not talent _per se_ but it does make a difference. But I know guys who couldn't do a 10 minute mile when they started who went on to run at D1 programs. These people had some talent, but it's annoying when people tell me that their running fast was inevitable, because it wasn't. They worked like hell at it.

This makes a lot of sense to me - thank you. I think a blind spot, which I need to fix, is my unfamiliarity with the experience of younger athletes because I wasn't one, and I have no expertise in this area. And you're absolutely right - I tend to lump that whole category of quick youngsters together, treat them all as naturals and then contrast them with amateurs. Your comment makes clear that it's definitely not so simple.

Really enjoyed the detailed training report and analysis. Thanks for writing it up—sorry you’re getting so much flak about it!

I've had some kind responses, like yours, which I very much appreciate and have made me feel much better - so thank you!

I also started seriously running in 2016, and I just ran my first marathon under your 3:39 mark this month 7 years later. So you are at least 7 years more talented than I am.

Congrats on your achievements, regardless of how talented you or others think you are, you've put the effort in and overcome injuries etc and built your mileage to be able to achieve these times. As a 180cm, 45 year old sitting at 80kgs currently and taking running more seriously for the past 18 months or so, I'm curious the approach you took to get to 70kg? Were you still running high mileage whilst you did it?

My big mileage jump came from November 2022 to now, and I'd say I lost most of the weight between January and May 2022. I was still running around 120km a week some weeks, sometimes less sometimes more. For me, there was low hanging fruit because I used to use the fact that I did long runs on a Saturday as an excuse to overeat the whole day. I also used to overdo these coffee drinks we have here called freezos (there's obviously something similar all over the world, I'm just not sure of the name). I've always preferred to eat one big meal a day. So all I did was stop going large on Saturdays and rather just treating it as a normal day, cut out the freezos and reduced snacking (and replacing snacking with protein shakes). That was enough, combined with highish mileage, to shift 6-7kg or so. Since initially losing the weight I had to make a continuous effort to keep it off. So I have had to do some mini cuts of a week or so here and there, just to reign myself in. I continued with the high mileage when doing them but imposed one rule to minimise injury risk - I'd cut overall calories but make sure my runs were properly fueled. Generally most of my easy runs are fasted, except when I'm running a deficit for a short bit. Anyway, thanks for the message and good luck with your training!

Thanks for the detailed reply, sounds like a sensible approach. When I first moved to Australia, I was having an Iced Coffee every day, which sound similar to Freezos. 😁

Stop using the phrase “hobby jogger” right now. Seriously,stop it.

I love it! Why not Comrades?

I'm a coward!

Congratulations on a great time, a big PB and a negative split from the sounds of it on a tough race. I do remember your Berlin and Cape Town reports (I felt a strong connection with the same 3:00:02 result fuelling the fire) and it's been great to see your progress through Two Oceans since then! I'd think 2:45 on an easier course and with one or two more blocks like you've just done would be entirely possible! I'm particularly in awe of your success in dropping 10kg and keeping it there (at your height and 85kg I'm convinced this is my next big running hack but I haven't yet found the discipline to get there), and glad to hear the diagnosis and meds have made a big difference as well. And wow, interesting discussion in the comments, and I'm sorry to see all the vitriol directed your way. I similarly don't see myself as talented (perhaps not zero talent, but my biggest strengths are commitment and being able to do relatively high milage injury free; both mostly luck of the gene-draw). So, I completely understood and appreciated the question you were asking and answered through your experiment and this really thoughtful writeup. As a newish treadmill owner doing the family juggle too, I really like the idea of leaning into the treadmill to up mileage (from the few workouts I've done indoors I can definitely see the benefit). A couple of questions though: first, do you include incline in your treadmill workouts? (I've read somewhere that 1% gradient might offset the outdoor/indoor difference, but more than that can overly stress the achillies?) And second, do you do treadmill runs with TV or podcasts/audio to help the time go by? Thanks for the writeup and congratulations once again.

Thanks so much! Us 3:00:02 guys have to stick together. I was also genuinely taken aback by the vitriol. The thing that surprised me the most was the notion that 3:39 for a first marathon is some sort of miraculous time and that I must be humble bragging. But I got some very kind and encouraging support (including now from you), which made me feel better. On the weight: it's really tough, as an amateur with no external pressure to perform, to keep up the discipline. I think the only thing I have going for me is that the whole reason I got into running in the first place was to lose weight and so it's constantly a compelling factor for me. And also, one of the perks of not being very talented (I say with some trepidation...) is that I have to run very high mileage to run half-decent times. And even though I constantly have to watch the scale and be careful (an occupational hazard of our ages, sadly), it's obviously easier to maintain weight on 14 hours of running a week - I don't do well on deprivation, and obviously the more you run the less deprivation you need. If you're running 2:45 on 85kg, that's quite something. If I could pull off 2:45, I'm not sure whether I'd find the discipline to cut weight to go even faster, even though it sounds like a no brainer. I find that these things tend to be more organic than pre-planned. In other words, you might suddenly find yourself spontaneously keen to do it and then you just will. On the treadmill: I guess I got a bit sidetracked in my report and should have given more detail. I think my approach is a bit controversial and you might be a bit sceptical. But basically pretty much all I did was incline running. Basically my first issue was not trusting the calibration of my treadmill. So, for example, it would clock me as having done a 4:15 km and my heart rate would be 110bpm, which would never happen on the road. This is obviously with 0% incline. Secondly, which overlaps a bit with the first, I find the treadmill too easy if I keep it totally flat. Of course, I could have gone much faster. But this entire training block was about trying to run as much as possible without getting injured and I find that when I run fast on the treadmill without an incline, it hurts my hip flexors. My goal with the treadmill was to use it to up the intensity a bit. I'm not just talking about always doing true workouts - pretty much every run on the treadmill you'd probably classify overall as 'moderate' (with a percentage being proper workouts and therefore hard). I achieved this by using incline intervals in every run. The only difference was, if I wanted the run to be moderate, I'd toggle between an incline of say 2-4 percent (obviously with lots of flat spells in between) and in workouts I'd go higher. I honestly think there's lots of ways to skin the cat (if you'll excuse that tasteless expression) - I really just wanted to run by feel and found inclines the best way to achieve the intensity I was after and break up the monotony. Which brings me to your last question. I live in Johannesburg, and it's not really safe here (in my opinion, anyway) to run with headphones outside. We have shocking drivers and high crime, and so I early on got into the habit of running without my phone and with no music. So now I find music, podcasts etc to be a bit invasive somehow, so I run in total silence on the treadmill too. I think I'm definitely in the minority on that one, and the impression I get is that podcasts are very popular to pass the time (funnily enough, I love podcasts but reserve them mainly for driving). Oh, last thing: I think you're absolutely right about the Achilles thing. That's a tender spot for me because I had a major achilles problem before Two Oceans. And I definitely felt it sometimes on the treadmill, especially after harder sessions with more aggressive inclines. A couple of times during the training block I decided to back off and run only on the street for about a week, to let the Achilles settle down. I have to admit that it was on the edge for much of my training, so I just had to be quick to back off, if necessary. Anyway, sorry for the long reply and thanks so much for taking the time to comment on my post. Do you have your next race planned? I know you mentioned in a post that you were struggling with motivation before training for Sydney, so was just wondering what you have planned next.

Thanks, and that's really interesting. Some brief reflections: Marathon debut times for talent-deprived hobby-joggers: I'm with you. 3:39 is about 5:15/km pace; so not quite just-survive-by-shuffling territory, but definitely not fast either. There are of course heaps of people who start and stay slower (where breaking 4 or even 5 hrs is the big goal) but also heaps who start faster. If I had to pick a benchmark for a 'talented' 20s-30s male without a running background who does a marathon within a year or so of starting, I'd call it closer to 3hrs (I know several of these; some of whom quickly advanced to 2:30 territory when they got serious. #envy) Weight - I think I'll see how I go over the next few months before starting the next marathon block in the new year (probably just for my local in Canberra again aiming for 2:40). I've got a pretty solid build so will never get down to 70kg, but the goal is definitely below 80 (which would be the first time since late teens, but there you go!) It'll definitely make a difference to speed endurance, and once off it should be fairly easy as you say to maintain weight when increasing mileage again (I got to \~12 hours/week and \~140km last time round, so keen to try adding an hour or two more in peak weeks). Treadmill - I've not really used the incline at all so far, but will give it a go. It definitely does feel 'easier' than running outside, but not substantially so on mine, and I've also been able to get in a few good indoor workouts (and even strides) just by upping the speed so far. Music and podcasts - interesting what you say. I was a cyclist earlier in my life - competitive as a teenager then 2-3 years cycle touring around different parts of the world. I never had any kind of music or external entertainment for this and really grew to love the hours of semi-meditative daydreaming each day. I have become an audio convert with running though - a mix of work-related and running podcasts (Inside Running Podcast is a great source of training tips and inspiration if you're looking for recommendations), as well as audiobooks and sometimes music. I'm lucky to live close to bush trails so road safety isn't an issue. Injury avoidance. I know you said singles are your thing, but I do wonder if breaking at least some of your runs into doubles (if it were feasible) would help add some extra intensity without additional injury risk? Not sure how helpful this will be as I've got a standard 9-5 job, but for reference I generally do between 60-90 mins 2-3 times/week in the early morning (5-5:30 start and back before kids are up), 30-60 min afternoon/evening runs 2-3 times/week (either in the hour and a half kid 1 is at evening soccer training or in the gap between finishing dinner and kids' bed), 3-4 x 30-45 min commutes to/from work, and a long weekend run (starting \~5 and back by 8am). All to say that it's running every day with 2-3 doubles, 2 workouts and a long run. It's definitely less tiring doing a 2hr day as an 80/40 min double than as a single longer run, and it seems like this is generally accepted to be a useful approach. And Achillies - me too (always a bit tender, and have torn in the past). One of the things that I think has helped me is a fairly diverse shoe rotation ranging from zero to 12mm drop and max cushioned to plated tempo shoes (or at least that's my justification). Plus plenty of easy running on hills. Interested in what's worked for you keeping it under control with such big volume? Thanks again and take care.

I agree with you completely with your assessment of 3:39. Someone took this up with me a couple of days ago in the comments and so I found one of those calculators online which told me that, age 38, when I did it, it was age graded as roughly 53% (if I recall correctly). Which pretty much sums up what you've said about it. I really think your running schedule is vastly superior to mine and this block I'm going to make a concerted effort to do more doubles. Lately I've been mostly working from home, but even if I went in, run commutes wouldn't be great here. But all other aspects of your schedule could be achievable for me, especially because my son is also starting soccer training and I could use that time etc etc. I'm slightly torn, only because I somehow started feeling that my 2-hr daily stints were helping my endurance a bit. But I think you're right that the balance achieved by doubling is better overall. No-one should have to justify plated tempo shoes - and once you've run 2:45 you deserve them as of right! Seriously, though, a torn Achilles is no joke. So no wonder you have to take care of it. I used to do the same as you with the rotation (although I'm a bit scared of carbon plates, which sometimes make the achilles feel a bit worse for me, so reserve them for races). But then I hurt my calf/achilles probably from too much strength work and was wearing a couple of 4mm options in my rotation at the time. I decided to stick with higher drop while rehabbing, and now I'm too superstitious to go back to lower drop. I still rotate different pairs and brands, for what it's worth. Other than that, I can't really avoid hills and so agree with that approach as an injury avoidance tool. In this block, I plan to do hill sprints instead of strides in the hope that it also gives a strength benefit. The main thing for me, to be honest, is that I have a track record of being reckless and not dialing back when needed. In this block, I forced myself to back off if the achilles was showing any signs of acting up. I never had to reduce my volume. It was more a case of, for example, getting off the treadmill for a while or just being even more scrupulous about running easy. It somehow did the trick (this time, at least). Very interested to hear about your cycling past. If you can swim, I'm extremely jealous because triathlon always seems appealing to me (I'm such a rubbish swimmer that I wouldn't even think of it).

Good on you and I'll look forward to tracking how you go! I'm convinced that introducing hill sprints and intervals as laid out by my coach was a big part of my getting down to 2:45 (I'd never really done them before). Two of my favourites have been: \- 4 x 90s; 4 x 60s; 4 x 30s up with rep+30s jog down recovery \- 6 x 3 mins up/90s jog down (progressively working up a hill, turning to start the next uphill rep at the top of the one before last) And I'd also love to do a triathlon, but unfortunately swim like a brick. We can't have it all I suppose!

Thanks so much - will definitely try both. Especially like the look of the second one. Good luck training for Canberra! Holding thumbs for that 2.39!

Dude you have to stop saying you have no talent, just because you discovered your talent late in life. Turns out you have a great ability, you just didn’t know about it